Project Pegasus ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

When this page went to AFD five years ago, the result was a merge and I am not challenging that. At the time, there were no secondary sources. Project Pegasus had been included as more or less an easter egg in a few Marvel films at that time. However, since then, it is now featured as a huge part of the plot in the newly-released Captain Marvel film, and as such it is being discussed in independent reliable sources, five of which were added to the article recently before it was redirected again. There are plenty more sources that come up on a Google search, and there may be more RS articles there that I did not see. Based on item #3 at DRV, "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page", I believe it is time to consider overturning the AFD. 8.37.179.254 ( talk) 17:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC) reply

• I don't necessarily specifically endorse a six-year-old AfD, but none of the sources on the page that was most recently redirected make any sort of showing of WP:GNG. I think this should remain a redirect, but don't have any problem if the revision right before the redirect gets moved to draftspace. SportingFlyer T· C 18:00, 12 March 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comment I have moved this discussion to the correct date as it was incorrectly placed at March 11. Today is March 12. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC) reply
• I suggest using those sources to expand the list entry before splitting it off. In the version you link, the reliable sources are only used to say it was a location in a film. That's not enough to pass GNG. Argento Surfer ( talk) 19:34, 12 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Veracity of statements by Donald Trump ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This discussion was closed less than 6 hours after it began. Although all the votes so far were keep, this was not a sufficient amount of time to judge consensus. Furthermore, this was closed via a WP:NACD by User:Serial Number 54129, a user who previously contested its speedy deletion [1] and therefore had no business closing the discussion. As per NACD, "Do not close discussions in which you have offered an opinion, or for a page in which you have a vested interest " I asked the editor to revert the close and was refused. SerialNumber, also has a misunderstanding of the definition of WP:ATTACK, thinking that only poorly sourced articles are attack pages. Rusf10 ( talk) 17:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC) reply